Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- input_allocation [2020/02/11 09:52] – [Input allocation excluding young animals, fertiliser and feed] matsz
+++ input_allocation [2020/02/13 11:34] – [Input allocation for feed] matsz
@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 Figure below shows the different cattle activities and the related young animal products used in the model. Milk cows (DCOL, DCOH) and suckler cows (SCOW) produce male and female calves (YCAM, YCAF). The relation between male and female calves is estimated ex post in the COCO framework. These calves are assumed to weigh 50 kg at birth (see gams\feed\feed_decl.gms) and to be born on the 1st of January. They enter immediately the raising processes for male and female calves (CAMR, CAFR) which produce young heifers (YHEI, 300 kg live weight) and young bulls (YBUL, 335 kg). The raising processing are assumed to take one year, so that calves born in t enter the processes for male adult fattening (BULL, BULH), heifers fattening (HEIL, HEIH) or heifers raising (HEIR) on the 1st January of the next year t+1. The heifers raising process produces then the young cows which can be used for replacement or herd size increasing on the first of January of t+2. The table below the diagram shows a numerical example (for DK, 1999-2001) for these relationships.
+**Figure 5: The cattle chain**
+{{:figure_5.png?600|}}
+Accordingly, each raising and fattening process takes exactly one young animal on the input side. The raising processes produce exactly one animal on the output side which is one year older. The output of calves per cow, piglets per sow, lambs per mother sheep or mother goat is derived ex post, e.g. simultaneously from the number of cows in t-1, the number of slaughtered bulls and heifers and replaced in t+1 which determine the level of the raising processes in t and number of slaughtered calves in t. The herd flow models for pig, sheep and goat and poultry are similar, but less complex, as all interactions happen in the same year, and no specific raising processes are introduced.
+** Table 7: Example for the relation inside the cattle chain (Denmark, 1999-2001)**
+^ ^		^1999	^2000	^2001^
+|**Male calves used in t and born in t**||
+|DCOWLEVL	|Number of dairy cows|	667,03|	654,08|	631,92|
+|DCOWYCAM	|Number of male calves born per 1000 dairy cows|	420,72	|438,62	|438,26|
+|//Number of males calves born from dairy cows//	| |	280,63|	286,89|	276,95|
+|SCOWLEVL	|Number of suckler cows	|127,36	|126,91	|124,85|
+|SCOWYCAM	|Number of male calves born per 1000 suckler cows|	420,72|	411,83|	401,61|
+|//Number of male calves born from suckler cows//|		|53,58	|52,27	|50,14|
+|//Number of all male calves born//|		|334,22	|339,16	|327,09|
+|GROFYCAM	|Number of male calves produced	|334,21	|339,16	|327,09|
+|CAMFLEVL	|Number of male calves fattened	|81,32	|72,57	|49,18|
+|CAMRLEVL	|Activity level of the male calves raising process|	252,89|	266,59|	277,91|
+|Sum of processes using male calves	|	|334,21|	339,16|	327,09|
+|GROFYCAM	|Number of male calves used	|334,21	|339,16	|327,09|
+|**Female calves used in t and born in t**||
+|DCOWLEVL	|Number of dairy cows	|667,03	|654,08|	631,92|
+|DCOWYCAF	|Number of female calves born per 1000 dairy cows|	404,15|	421,58|	412,86|
+|//Number of female calves born from dairy cows//|	|	269,58|	275,75|	260,89|
+|SCOWLEVL	|Number of suckler cows	|127,36	|126,91	|124,85|
+|SCOWYCAF	|Number of male calves born per 1000 suckler cows	|404,15|	398,04|	387,21|
+|//Number of female calves born from suckler cows//|		|51,47|	50,52	|48,34|
+|//Number of all female calves born//|		|321,05	|326,26	|309,24|
+|GROFYCAF	|Number of female calves produced	|321,05	|326,27|	309,24|
+|CAFFLEVL	|Number of female calves fattened	|26,64	|28,74|	18,39|
+|CAFRLEVL	|Activity level of the female calves raising process|	294,41	|297,53	|290,85|
+|Female calves used in t and born in t	|	|321,05|	326,27|	309,24|
+|GROFYCAF	|Number of female calves used	|321,05	|326,27	|309,24|
+|**Young bulls used in t and young bulls produced in t**||
+|BULFLEVL|	Activity level of the bull fattening process|	262,94|	252,89|	266,59|
+|GROFIBUL|	Number of young bulls used	|262,94	|252,89|	266,59|
+|GROFYBUL|	Number of young bulls raised from calvs	|252,89|	266,59	|277,91|
+|CAMRLEVL|	Activity level of the male calves raising process	|252,89|	266,59|	277,91|
+|**Heifers used in t and heifers produced in t**||
+|HEIFLEVL|	Activity level of the heifers fattening process	|64,36	|67,25|	68,12|
+|HEIRLEVL|	Activity level of the heifers raising process	|235,45|	227,16|	229,4|
+|Sum of heifer processes|		|299,81| 294,41|	297,52|
+|GROFIHEI	|Number of heifers used	|299,81	|294,41	|297,53|
+|GROFYHEI	|Number of heifers raised from calves	|294,41|	297,53	|290,85|
+|CAFRLEVL	|Activity level of the female calves raising process	|294,41	|297,53|	290,85|
+|**Cows used in t and heifers produced in t**||
+|DCOWLEVL	|Number of dairy cows	|667,03|	654,08|	631,92|
+|DCOWICOW	|Number of young cows needed per 1000 dairy cows	|332,01	|332,5|	327,52|
+|//Sum of young cows needed for the dairy cow herd//|		|221,46	|217,48|	206,97|
+|DCOWSLGH	|Slaugthered dairy cows	|221,47	|217,48	|206,11|
+|SCOWLEVL	|Number of suckler cows	|127,36	|126,91	|124,85|
+|SCOWICOW	|Number of young cows needed per 1000 suckler cows	|332,01	|332,48	|327,52|
+|//Sum of young cows needed for the suckler cow herd//|		|42,28	|42,20|	40,89|
+|SCOWSLGH	|Slaugthered suckler cows	|42,29	|42,19	|40,72|
+|//Sum of slaughtered cows//|		|263,76	|259,67	|246,83|
+|GROFICOW	|Number of young cows used	|263,75	|259,67|	247,86|
+|Stock change in dairy cows	|(DCOWLEVL(t+1)-DCOWLEVL(t)	|-12,95	|-22,16	|
+|Stock change in suckler cows	|(SCOWLEVL(t+1)-SCOWLEVL(t)	|-0,45	|-2,06	|
+|//Sum of stock changes in cows	//	| |-13,4	|-24,22	|
+|//Sum of slaughtered cows and stock change//|		|	|235,45|
+|GROFYCOW|	Numer of heifers raised to young cows|	235,45	|227,16	|229,4|
+|HEIRLEVL|	Activity level of the heifers raising process	|235,45	|227,16	|229,4|
+The table above is taken from the COCO data base. In some cases, regional statistical data or estimates for number of young animals per adult are available, but in most cases, all input and output coefficients relating to young animals are identical at regional and national level. Nevertheless, experiences with simulations during the first CAPRI project phase revealed that a fixed relationship between meat output and young animal need as expressed with on bull fattening process overestimates the rigidity of the technology in the cattle chain, where producers may react with changes in final weights to relative changes in output prices (meat) in relation to input prices (feed, young animals). A higher price for young animals will tend to increase final weights, as feed has become comparatively cheaper and vice versa. In order to introduce more flexibility in the system, the dairy cow, heifer and bull fattening processes are split up each in two processed as shown in the following table.
+**Table 8: Split up of cattle chain processes in different intensities**
+^ ^Low intensity/final weight	^High intensity/final weight^
+|Dairy cows (DCOW)	|DCOL: 60% milk yield of average, variable inputs besides feed an young animals at 60% of average	|DCOH: 140% milk yield of average, variable inputs besides feed an young animals at 140% of average|
+|Bull fattening (BULF)	|BULL: 20% lower meat output, variable inputs besides feed an young animals at 80% of average	|BULH: 20% higher meat output, variable inputs besides feed an young animals at 120% of average|
+|Heifers fattening (HEIF)|	HEIL: 20% lower meat output, variable inputs besides feed an young animals at 80% of average	|HEIH: 20% higher meat output, variable inputs besides feed an young animals at 120% of average|
+====Input allocation for feed====
+The input allocation for feed describes how much kg of certain feed categories (cereals, rich protein, rich energy, feed based on dairy products, other feed) or single feeding stuff (fodder maize, grass, fodder from arable land, straw, milk for feeding) are used per animal activity level((The reader should notice again that the activity definition for fattening processes are slaughtered plus exported minus imported animals and not stable places.)).
+The input allocation for feed takes into account nutrient requirements of animals, building upon requirement functions. The input coefficients for feeding stuff shall hence ensure that energy, protein requirements, etc. cover the nutrient needs of the animals. Further on, ex post, they should be in line with regional fodder production and total feed demand statistics at national level, the latter stemming from market balances. And last but not least, the input coefficients together with feed prices should lead to reasonable feed cost for the activities.
+===Estimation of fodder prices===
+Since the last revision of the EAA, own produced fodder (grass, silage etc.) is valued in the EAA. Individual estimates are given for fodder maize and fodder root crops, but no break down is given for fodder on arable land and fodder produced as grassland as presented in the CAPRI data base. The difference between grass and arable land is introduced, as conversion of grass to arable land is forbidden under cross compliance conditions so that marginal values of grassland and arable land may be different.
+The price attached to fodder should reflect both its nutritional content and the production costs at regional level. The entropy based estimation process tries to integrate both aspects.
+The following equations are integrated in the estimator. Firstly, the regional prices for ‘grass’, ‘fodder on arable land’ and ‘straw’ (fint) multiplied with the fed quantities at regional level must exhaust the vale reported in the economic accounts, so that the EAA revenues attached to fodder are kept unchanged:
+\begin{equation}
+\sum_{r,fint}\overline{FEDUSE}_{r,fint}PFOD_{r,fint} = \overline{EAAP}_{OFAR,MS}+\overline{EAAP}_{GRAS,MS}
+\end{equation}
+Secondly, the Gross Value Added of the fodder activities is defined as the difference between main revenues (from main fodder yield), other revenues, and total input costs based on the input allocation for crops described above.
+\begin{equation}
+GVAM_{r,fint} = \overline{YIELD}_{r,fint}PFOD_{r,fint}+\overline{OREV}_{r,fint}-\overline{TOIN}_{r,fint}
+\end{equation}
+Other revenues may be from the nutrient value in crop residues. Next, an HDP objective is added which penalises deviations from the a priori mode.
+The a priori mode for the prices of ‘grass’ and ‘other fodder on arable land’ are the EAAP values divided by total production volume which is by definition equal to feed use. The price of straw for feed use is expected to be at 1 % of the grass price.
+Supports for Gross Value Added per activity are centred around 150 % of the value of total inputs as allocated by the rules and algorithm described above, with wide bounds.
+Wide supports for the Gross Value Added of the fodder activities mirror the problem of finding good internal prices but also the dubious data quality both of fodder output as reported in statistics and the value attached to it in the EAA. The wide supports allow for negative Gross Value Added, which may certainly occur in certain years depending on realised yields. In order to exclude such estimation outcomes as far as possible an additional constraint is introduced:
+\begin{equation}
+GVAM_{r,fint} \ge \overline{TOIN}_{r,fint}\overline {gvafac} \text PLATZHALTER EQUATION 37
+\end{equation}
+The parameter \(gvafac\) is initialised with zero so that first a solution is tried where all activities have positive GVAs. If infeasibilities arise, the factor is stepwise increased until feasibility is achieved, to ensure that estimated fodder prices are giving the minimal number of activities with negative Gross Value Addeds.
+===Calibration of the feed allocation ===
+The allocation of feed to animal activities has been changed several times (like the fertiliser allocation). The most recent version has been developed ((This section draws upon a corresponding Star 2 deliverable and coding which are due in major parts to CAPRI expert Markus Kempen. As Markus was not involved in this documentation, he is released from any responsibility for remaining errors. A more detailed version of this section is offered as [[https://www.capri-model.org/dokuwiki/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=docu_feed_calib.pdf]].)) in the Stable Release 2 (in the following: “Star2”) project which will become also the standard version in the CAPRI trunk at the next opportunity.
+**General concept**